Markw4, there's an old article in Stereophile by Rémy Fourré (of UltraAnalog at that time) that talks about this problem:
Jitter & the Digital Interface Page 2 | Stereophile.com
As to the 'external' digital filters you've mentioned a few pages back, I fully agree with you, but (!) the biggest problem for many is that working with DSPs or gate arrays calls for completely different set of skills (and tools), which not all of us have.
It is entirely possible to be smart, successful, and yet arrive at the wrong conclusion. Witness most of this thread.
This argument about Delta Sigma DACs is old and tired at this point. Let's use a metric you like to use - if they are so bad, then why does virtually every single top audiophile rated box use DS converters? Even your old buddy Charles Hansen was using them in their flagship products, for quite a long time, too. I think he was even using PCM1738 in products earlier than many adopters.
It is interesting that none of the players in the industry decided to come out and say their new DACs sounded worse than the old ones when they replaced their PCM1702, AD1862, AD1865, TDA1541, etc. based designs. The Stereophile reviews certainly didn't get less effusive.
There you go, "proof", JC style.
There is not a shred of legitimate evidence that DS converters inherently sound worse, you will have trouble even cherry picking / crowdsourcing impressions with the success and wide acceptance of DACs like the newer AKM and ESS parts.
Since you seem to value subjective impressions - for what it's worth (not much), I have listened to multibit DACs built with AD1865, PCM1704, and TDA1541A and I found there to be no obvious differences that would be attributable to their converter architecture.
You should consider that maybe your friend's ears aren't the best point of reference and that his observations are biased due to his feelings and experiences with said topologies.
Last edited:
I've got >1 patent and the PhD-EE. If someone can bring the experience side, I think we can make this happen quickly.
*My Ph.D doesn't deal a lick with circuits or analog/mixed-mode, which should further give credence to my opinion that DS DACs are great. (if anyone is taking me seriously...)
I’ve got 7 patents in Canada, US, Europe and the Far East, the PhD-EE and 35 years of experience.
DS-DACs are great, there
.Approved patents are public by nature (what's the point otherwise!), albeit government agencies do classify some from time to time. So that doesn't make any sense.
Most of us can't hold a candle in other's respective areas of specialty, whoop de doo. The world is pretty complex and breadth and depth are no longer a reality in the same way as when our understanding of the universe was smaller. I work in a massively multidisciplinary operation -- it's a miracle some days I retain as much as I do from talking to several of my colleagues because their domains of expertise are so far apart from my own (and I'm more of a glue person than most in our institution!).
Electric motors are a bit afield of new DAC topologies, though, no? And since you're not an expert in his area of specialty, how are you a good judge of his talent? What if he's pulling your leg?
T, I often listen to digital radio during the day, usually Blues. Sounds OK to me. I then use the same Sequerra Met7 speakers that Scott uses. No highs or deep lows, but it sounds OK with rock and roll, or the Blues. I am often surprised that it sounds that good. I only turn on my $50,000 system for serious listening.
I actually can measure complex/vector impedances, with the other half of my lab setup, not in the photo. Up to 40GHz, that is, and with no error 25
I probably should have worded my initial reply better. He might even be a master DAC designer, but his conclusion that they all "sound bad" is unsubstantiated at best.
I'd rather evaluate the claim and not just the CV of the person making it. History is littered with brilliant people that were wrong sometimes.
Maybe I am wrong here, but I've seen no credible theory or data, and this is one of those topics that's come up routinely over the past 20 years on this and other audio forums.
Last edited:
Well, you self admittedly don't know anything about digital. I am not sure why you would immediately blame it on the converter topology. Mark's explanation will not hold up to any sort of rigorous analysis.
Forgive me if, again, I do not trust in sighted listening tests performed by representatives of the most hearing challenged group in the population.
Thank you for the link. However, I think we can show there are more timing compilcations than just jitter. I am talking about absolute signal edge arrival time vs dac master clock phase affecting sound quality and this is for signal inputs intended to work with asynchronous incoming data. I wasn't expecting as much sensitivity there. Could be if there is enough jitter it would swamp the above described effect, but its there, and plainly evident when jitter is low enough.
This is more about DSD.
Every single in-production audio converter IC that I am aware of is a multi-bit Sigma Delta, though.
Can you explain what you mean? This makes no sense to me. You do realize there are registers in the DAC, right?
Each DAC chip maker runs their own noise shaping standard.
Sony, Panasonic, Yamaha, Pioneer etc noise shapings all sounded different back in their day.
One might sound 'right', which one ?.
Dan.
Last edited:
In which component do you surmise there is noise shaping? Who makes such components for these big 4 electronics companies? Where do you get this stuff from...
Personal remarks about "serious listening".
In fact, and I try to understand-it, with age, I listen less and less to my big system.
When I listen to a live concert on the average speaker system of my computer (full range +sub), I am totally focused on the play of the musicians. Not so much in concern with the "sound".
When i'm on my TV room where is my big system, i'm more in concern with the "technical quality" of the reproduction, so, how to say, less "relax" (easy listening).
Often disturbed with little defects in the mix (my system forgives nothing), and, in the same time, asking-myself if the little imbalances that i notice most of the time (différents in each records) come from flaws of my own speakers, because they are from my design (I had spend months to voice them)... or from the mix itself, or ...
Some (rare) records are perfect, impressives, and it is an incredible pleasure. But, even there, I can not stop looking for something to improve.
So "serious listening", as you call, is quite tiring for me.
Perhaps it is impossible for a sound engineer or an audio designer to listen to what people call hifi without finding himself somewhere at work ?
Maybe I should ask a psychiatrist to come to my rescue ?
All those thoughts not to tell my life, but to ask a strange question: What is the limit of presidency, transparency and dynamic of a home "hifi" system beyond which it is *too much*.
My mother, an artist, used to say:
"The closer you get to perfection, the more distant it seems."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.